Legislative Analyst's Office

Analysis of the 2001-02 Budget Bill

Longer Middle School Year

The Governor's budget proposes $100 million from the General Fund (Proposition 98) to phase in a new incentive program to lengthen the school year for
middle schools by 30 days. (Most middle schools operate on 180-day calendars.) The administration estimates funding for the second year (2002-03) would
increase to $450 million. In the third year, the proposal calls for enough funding for all middle schools to participate, at a potential annual cost of $1 billion or
more. At the time of this analysis, however, the administration was revising program details. The administration intends to seek legislation to enact its longer
middle school year incentive program. At the time this analysis was prepared, no bill had been introduced and no draft bill language had been provided for
legislative review.

The Secretary for Education has stated that the program would be available to all middle schools serving students in grades 7 and 8, and that school districts
could choose to include either 6th grade or 9th grade in the program depending on school configurations. The proposal would provide $770 per student, intended
to offset the costs of increasing the school year by 30 days. Participating districts also must agree to have instructional materials aligned to the state academic
standards.

The Secretary also stated the administration's intent to devise special rules for multitrack year-round schools, where it would be difficult (or impossible) to
extend the school year to 210 days. These rules probably would include allowing multitrack schools to lengthen the school day by an equivalent number of
hours (slightly less than one hour per day based upon our calculations). Even so, multitrack schools may have difficulty implementing an extended school day,
or would do so at the expense of supplemental instructional programs.

District participation in the longer middle school year program would be voluntary, but only in the most limited sense. The proposed $770 per-pupil payments
for extending the school year represents a very large amount to school districtsover one-sixth of average revenue limit funding. Districts would have the
option of foregoing these amounts but this would be a difficult decision from a practical standpoint.

The Role of Time in EducationResearch Findings

The Governor's proposal provides the Legislature with the opportunity to consider the role of time in education, and to ask some basic questions about how well
schools use the time they have. A recent study by West-Ed, the western regional laboratory for the U.S. Department of Education, identifies three different
measures of time in education that differ qualitatively and in terms of policy implications.

Instructional Time. The number of hours a student is in class"seat time."

Engaged Time. "Time-on-task" in which a student participates in a learning activity.

Academic Learning Time. The precise time when an instructional activity is aligned with a student's readiness and when learning occurs.

The West-Ed study found, based on a review of the academic literature, that:

There is little to no relationship between instructional time and student achievement.

There is some relationship between engaged time and achievement.

There is a larger relationship between academic learning time and achievement.

The West-Ed study summarized the role of time in education as follows:

The research literature suggests that, while time is certainly a critical factor, by itself it has little direct impact on student performance. Simply adding time to
the school year or day would not likely produce large scale gains in student achievement.

Rather, what research studies repeatedly find is that in education, quality is the key to making time matter. Of particular importance is providing curriculum and
instruction geared to the needs and abilities of students, engaging them so they will return day after day, continuing to build on what they have learned. In other
words, educators mustto the greatest extent possiblemake every hour count. What matters most are those catalytic moments when students are absorbed in
instructional activities that are adequately challenging, yet allow them to experience success . . . Only when time is used more effectively will adding more of it
begin to result in improved learning outcomes for all students.

Instructional Time Alone Not the Answer

Instructional Time in Different Countries. The Governor's budget summary cites as one rationale for extending the school year the hope of replicating the
academic success that other countries with longer school years have experienced. The budget summary specifically cites Japan, Korea, and Taiwan as countries
providing 20 to 40 more school days and demonstrating high student achievement. The fact that these countries have nominally longer school calendars,
however, does not necessarily explain the high achievement relative to California or the United States, since many important aspects of these educational
systems and national cultures also differ strikingly. In fact, a closer inspection of how time is used in different countries is revealing.

Perhaps surprisingly, the instructional time that students in the United States receive is greater than other developed countries. Figure 1
shows
that middle school students in the United States receive 980 hours of instruction annually, which exceeds the average for countries in the
Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Since instructional time for California middle schools falls within the approximate range of other American states,
California middle school students annually receive more hours of instruction than students in either Japan or Korea. This is because Japanese and Korean
students spend more of their day on noninstructional activitysuch as at-school study periodsthan California students. Moreover, Japanese and Korean
teachers spend less time instructing pupils because they spend more of their day than their California counterparts in activities such as class preparation, grading
papers, and staff development.

Figure 1

Instructional Time for
14-Year-Old Students

1998
(Hours per Year)

Country

Hours of Instruction

Netherlands

1,067

United States

980

France

975

International Average a

944

Denmark

930

Germany

921

Czech Republic

869

Japan

875

Korea

867

Norway

855

England

720

a International
average includes 16 additional Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries that submitted data.

Source: OECD Education Database.

Another important distinction in how time is used in different countries involves the proportion of instructional time devoted to core academic subjects, which
is much higher in Japan and many other countries than in California. Figure 2 shows the number of hours a high school student spends annually
on core academic subjects (such as math and language arts). The figure indicates, for instance, that American students spend significantly less than half the time
on core subjects as in Japan, France, and Germany. California time requirements for instruction in the core academic subjects may be slightly higher than the
national average, but are still significantly below the requirement in Japan, France, and Germany. While the data available from the international studies shown
in Figures 1 and 2 are for different grade levels, the data generally suggest that students in the United States spend as much or more time in classes, but receive
significantly less instruction in the core academic subjects.

Figure 2

Required Instructional Time in
Core Academic Subjects

(High Schools)

Country

Average Hours Annually

United States

365

Japan

793

France

820

Germany

882

International Math and Science Study Suggests Instructional Quality May Be Lower in U.S. As part of the Third International Mathematics and Science
Study, mathematics experts reviewed video tapes of classes from a representative sample of mathematics instruction and ranked the quality of instruction high,
medium, or low. They found that 89 percent of the U.S. classroom instruction reviewed was of low quality. By comparison, 34 percent of the reviewed
instruction was graded as low quality for German classrooms, and 11 percent for Japanese classrooms. The study also found that new teachers in the U.S
received less on-the-job training, less mentoring, and less preparation time than teachers in Germany or Japan.

Using Existing Time Better

The West-Ed report suggests that better time management and increasing the portion of the academic day dedicated to core academic subjects are ways to
maximize student time dedicated to academic learning without requiring significant additional expenditures, as discussed below.

Better Time Management. The report suggests administrators can manage time better by eliminating disruptions to class time by reducing the use of
announcements, simplifying roll taking, and reducing discipline problems. In addition, studies show that teachers need to improve their classroom
management skills to make the most of the available time.

Focusing on the Academic Core. Current law sets high school graduation requirements of three courses in English, two courses in math, two courses in
science, three courses in social science, one course in art or foreign language, and two courses in physical education. In total, students have 13 required
courses of the 24 courses they generally will take in high school. As mentioned above, students in other countries are required to take significantly more
hours of instruction in these core academic subjects. The Legislature could increase the portion of the day dedicated to the core academic subject areas by
increasing these graduation requirements.

Another approach to improving the use of existing time is the adoption of alternative academic calendars, as discussed further below.

Alternative Academic Calendars

Background. According to researchers, the traditional nine-month school calendar evolved long ago as a compromise between agrarian and urban regions and
has no real tie to how students learn or to the needs of modern family lifestyles. Research suggests that altering the academic calendar may improve student
performance over time by eliminating the long summer break when students often forget much of what they have learned.

Summer Fall-Off Effect Varies By Subject Area and Socioeconomic Status. Researchers have documented the learning "fall-off effect" or the "summer of
forgetting" that occurs between the last day of one school year and the first day of the next. A recent academic article reviewed 39 studies tracking student
achievement over the summer months. The findings of that review suggest that the impact of summer vacations on learning differs by subject area and across
socioeconomic groups:

Computational math scores tend to fall for students of all groups over the summer.

Reading scores tend to decrease for students of low socioeconomic status and students whose home language was not English.

Reading scores tend to increase over the summer for more affluent students.

Researchers have not been able to determine if the summer fall-off effect has lasting impacts or whether students recover over the course of the next school
year. That the impacts of summer vacation differ among socioeconomic groups implies that options to address these effects should be flexible. Researchers
have proposed three basic ways to address the summer fall-off effectyear-round scheduling, targeted or remedial summer school, and longer school year. The
cost implications of these three alternatives for California differ greatly, ranging from almost no extra cost to potentially billions of dollars annually.

Can a Year-Round Calendar Improve Achievement? A year-round schedule involves distributing the same number of school days as in the traditional
calendar (180) but structuring the "breaks" at more intervals that are shorter than the traditional summer break. The most common year-round schedule has a
recurring pattern of 60 days of school followed by 20 days off. In California over 1.3 million students (22 percent of students) attend schools on a year-round
calendar. This calendar could have several potential benefits:

Reduced Summer Fall-Off Effect. Researchers often discuss the possibility that students forget less when given shorter breaks than the traditional
three-month summer break. While there is an intuitive logic to the argument, we have not found empirical evidence to verify or disprove this hypothesis.

Improved Remediation Opportunities. A year-round schedule offers students more frequent opportunities for remediation. Under the traditional school
calendar, students often have to wait the entire school year to be provided the extra time they need to catch up in summer school. Offering more frequent
intersession remediation may be more beneficial for struggling students.

Reduced Teacher Burnout. Researchers suggest providing more frequent, shorter breaks to teachers may help keep them more engaged over time.

Summer School Provides Opportunity to Catch Up. A second alternative to addressing the summer fall-off effect is to provide summer school to all students at
a school, or targeted sets of students. Unlike lengthening the school year, summer school generally concentrates on students in most need, and often focuses
exclusively on core academic subjects.

What Are the Problems the Administration Is Trying to Solve?

The administration has identified several problems that it is trying to solve with this program.

Student Achievement Declines in Middle School. The Governor's proposal attempts to address (1) a decline in reading test scores occurring in 9th grade, and
(2) the relatively weak improvement in student test scores in middle schools over the last couple of years. The data, however, suggest a more complicated set of
student achievement problems that are evident to some degree in many middle schools, but are more clearly evident in many high schools. Achievement data
from the National Assessment of Education Progress, Stanford-9, and international comparisons suggest that academic achievement in middle schools is
relatively similar to that in elementary schools. Figure 3 shows that Stanford-9 test scores for students in 4th grade and 8th grade are similar. However, starting in
9th grade and continuing through 11th grade (the last year the Stanford-9 is administered), reading test scores decline.

Figure 3

Percent of California Public School Students Above National Average a

4th
Grade

8th
Grade

9th
Grade

11th
Grade

Math

51%

48%

51%

47%

Reading

45

49

35

36

Language arts

51

51

52

48

aBased
on Stanford-9 test data.

Over the most recent two-year period for which data are available, student achievement as measured by the Stanford-9 improved in all grades, but relatively
more in the elementary schools than in middle schools and high schools. Figure 4 shows recent improvements in the percentage of students scoring above the
national average on the
Stanford-9. We have concerns about the exact meaning of these achievement gains, given that the Stanford-9 has numerous problems (which we discuss in the
"Accountability" section of this chapter). However, the recent results suggest that middle schools may be appropriate grade levels to target additional resources
to ensure that all students enter high school prepared. But the data suggest that additional resources also may be needed in high schools, where achievement
problems seem more prominent.

Figure 4

Gains in California
Student Achievement

(Change in Percent of Students Above National Average)
1998 Through 2000

Reading

Language

Mathematics

Elementary (Grades 2 - 6)

5%

7%

12%

Middle School (Grades 7 - 8)

3

4

6

High School
(Grades 9-11)

1

3

5

Preparing Students for HSEE. To support its longer middle school year initiative the Governor's budget summary states: "It is critically important that
studentsparticularly those who enter the middle grades without having mastery of basic skillsachieve grade-level competency in reading and mathematics
before they enter high school." A related budget document cites the need for middle school students, " . . . to achieve reading and math competency especially as
it relates to the High School Exit Exam." However, the students the administration refers tothose who are below grade-level competency and, therefore, are in
danger of not passing the High School Exit Exam (HSEE)are not evenly distributed throughout the state's schools.

Students Experience a "Summer Fall-Off." As we discussed above, the summer fall-off effect is real, and supported by the data.

Inadequate Support Time for Teachers. International comparisons suggest that teachers in the United States provide the highest number of hours of
instruction. As a result, teachers in the United States have significantly less time to prepare, collaborate, be mentored, and receive staff development than
teachers in other countries.

The problems the Governor has identified are serious issues that warrant discussion. Some of the problems are faced by all schools in the state, but most are
faced by a subset of schools. Many of these same schools face other problems that have not been singled out by the administration as part of its longer year
initiative, such as the lack of fully qualified teachers, inadequate classroom space, and inadequate remedial instruction.

Longer School Year Proposal Not Best Solution

In our view, the administration has not made the case that (1) the problems facing middle schools are so widespread as to justify a universal solution, or (2) that
the longer school year is the best solution to middle school problems. We have identified the following key drawbacks to the Governor's proposal:

Research Does Not Support Longer School Year. As discussed above, research findings indicate that extending the school year has limited or no effect on
student achievement. If an educational program uses existing time ineffectively, or is seriously deficient in quality, simply adding days can be futile. The
administration cites a recent pilot project, Oxnard Union High School District, to support its proposal. The pilot project, however, provided inconclusive
results, which we discuss in the nearby shaded box.

High-Opportunity Costs. The proposal would commit the state to spending as much as $1 billion (or more) annually for one improvement strategy in up to
four grades. Under the administration's proposed approach, this very large share of new Proposition 98 funds would not be available for any other strategies
for improvement, including additional teacher preparation time, selective class size reduction, expanded requirements in core academic subjects, distance
learning, or more and better counseling.

Optional Participation Only in Most Limited Sense. School district participation is optional, but only in the most limited sense. The amount of funding
provided in the incentive is too high as a practical matter for districts to easily pass up. Districts are not given the option to access funds for any other
possible strategies to improve achievement of middle school students.

Proposal Misses Pockets of Failure. The proposal does not target "pockets" of educational failure. The proposal assumes nearly universal participation by
eligible schools, regardless of the fact that many schools and students are doing a relatively good job, while other schools and students face severe
challenges. Moreover, many of the lowest-performing schools in the state operate on a multitrack year-round schedule because of lack of facilities.
Multitrack year-round schools would not be able to implement the extended year proposal, and may have difficulty extending the school day as well.

Misses High Schools. The proposal fails to address the fact that achievement problems persist through high school.

Conflicts With Remedial Summer School. Remedial summer school is an opportunity for students who struggled to understand concepts during the regular
school year to review those concepts in greater depth, in a more focused environment. A school's participation in the extended school year could impinge on
available time for necessary summer school remediation.

Results From Oxnard Longer
School Year Pilot Inconclusive

In the 1996-97 Budget Act, the Legislature initiated an extended school year pilot project in Oxnard Union High School District, and provided $1.75 million to
extend the school year to 187 days. In fiscal years
1997-98 through 1999-00, the Legislature provided funding to increase the school year to 195 days. The implementing legislation for the project required an
independent evaluation be completed and delivered to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) in fall 2000. The independent evaluator did issue an interim
report in 1999, and the school district has informed us that the findings in the final report are similar to the interim report. However, at the time of this
analysis, the final report had not been provided to our office.

The evaluation addresses five areas and the preliminary findings
include:

Teacher Perceptions. Some teachers reported that the extra time allowed them to cover topics in more depth, and others were able to cover more topics.

Student Perceptions. Students perceived a greater amount of work being assigned, and that teachers explained topics in greater depth.

Student and Teacher Absences. The implementation of the
15-day extended year led to an increase in the number of days absent for both students and teachers. Students were absent an additional three days on average,
or one-fifth of the school year extension.

Dropout Rates. Dropout rates decreased from 2.9 percent annually to 1.6 percent. While the change in the dropout rate is significant, dropout statistics should
be interpreted with caution because of problems with dropout data.

Student Achievement. Unfortunately for the purposes of the evaluation, the school district switched tests between the base year and the year of the evaluation.
When a school district switches assessments, it is difficult to make comparisons across the testing years since one test may be easier/harder than the other one
in a specific subject area or one test may be better aligned to what the students are actually learning. One more note of caution is that the evaluation provides
the amount of change in average student test scores that occurs, but does not address whether any of the changes are statistically valid changes. Given these
important caveats, the findings of the preliminary evaluation - shown below -
should be interpreted with significant caution. They indicate that the impact of the
extended school year on student achievement is mixed, with generally negative effects on reading but generally positive effects on math.

Which Schools Will Be Allowed to Apply? Based upon the Governor's proposal to target three of the grades between 6th and 9th grade, approximately
69 percent of schools might be eligible to participate in this program, as shown in Figure 5. Is it the administration's intent that all of the schools in Figure 5
could apply for incentive funding? Extending the school year for only one or two grades in a school could be technically difficult. For example, some school
districts operate K-6 elementary schools and some operate K-8 elementary schools. Would a K-6 or a K-8 school want to extend the school year for some
students and not others?

What Selection Criteria Will Be Used? The first year of the three-year proposal provides enough funding for only about 10 percent of the middle schools.
The administration has not provided information on how schools would be selected initially.

How Much Will it Cost School Districts to Implement? The cost estimate underlying the proposed incentive funding of $770 per pupil is based upon
statewide average revenue limit (general purpose funds). Revenue limit funding represents approximately two-thirds of K-12 Proposition 98 funding. Thus,
the payment may not be enough to cover certain costs that are not typically funded through revenue limitssuch as transportation, special education, and 9th
grade class size reduction costs. On the other hand, the funding rate provided is greater than the funding of the Oxnard Union High School District pilot
project.

Figure 5

Number of Schools With
Grades 6-9 Enrollment

Elementary Schools

Grades K-6

1,966

Grades K-8

580

Other elementary combinations

99

Subtotal, Elementary

(2,645)

Middle Schools /Junior High Schools

Grades 6-8

706

Grades 7-8

341

Other middle schools

101

Subtotal, Middle Schools

(1,148)

High Schools

Grades 9-12

826

Other high schools

42

Subtotal, High Schools

(868)

Other

Grades K-12

13

Continuation high schools

517

Alternative schools

231

Special education schools

116

Community day schools

98

All other schools

93

Subtotal, Other

(1,068)

Total

5,729

Total schools in state

8,331

Percent of schools with
grades 6-9 students

69%

Provide Struggling Schools With
Expanded List of School Reform Options

We recommend the Legislature redirect the $100 million proposed for longer middle school year to a block grant targeted at middle schools and high
schools with high numbers of students in need. (Delete Item 6110-192-0001$100 million.)

The one-size-fits-all approach of the longer middle school year proposal fails to recognize the complexity and diversity of problems that middle schools face. It
also fails to address the fact that student achievement problems persist through high school. In our earlier discussion of "K-14 Education Priorities," in this
chapter, we propose a $500 million block grant that lets school districts flexibly address the needs of those middle schools and high schools facing the most
difficult problems. Our recommended approach has three main components:

Target Middle and High Schools. We recommend the Legislature
target high schools as well as middle schools because assessment results suggest
that high school students struggle even more than students in lower grades.
Also, many high schools probably need additional resources to help assure that
all their students are provided with an opportunity to pass the HSEE.

Target Resources to Schools in Need. We recommend targeting
additional resources at schools with the highest percentage of low-income
students and/or the lowest Academic Performance Index scores.

Allow Local Flexibility. We recommend providing school
districts with a menu of options to improve student achievement. Not all schools
are the same, nor do they face the same problems. Recognizing the diversity of
problems suggests allowing school districts to use a diverse set of tools to
address those problems.

Based on the problems we identify with the longer middle school year proposal
and the advantages of a targeted, flexible block grant approach, we recommend
the Legislature redirect the $100 million for a longer middle school year
to a block grant for middle schools and high schools with concentrations of
students in need. (We discuss our recommended disadvantaged schools block grant
in more detail in the
"K-14 Education Priorities" section of this chapter.)